UK General Election 2015

[AdamM]

So if you're born a poor Londoner, what are your choices?
How do you relocate?

[RickBFA]

btw here is public spending in 2010

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2010UKbn_14bc1n_80#ukgs302


and here it is in 2014

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2014UKbn_14bc1n#ukgs302

There isn't really very much evidence of Labour's profligacy and George's austerity.  He did though manage to scare everyone when he took office nearly causing the economy to tumble back into recession.

I think showing 2010 labour spend isn't really the reason why the country is busto.  Try publishing the previous 8 years then we might see where the issues with over spend were with the loony lefties pre 2007 banking crisis.

What? The 2008 crisis wasn't a public spending crisis man.

You need to distinguish between the credit crisis and the public spending.  If we ignore the regulation side, the credit crisis had little to do with Labour.   However, the insanity of running budget deficits during a crack boom between 2002 and 2007 when the tax receipts were rolling in meant that we were in a far worse position to counter the credit crisis with increased Government spending than if we had been more disciplined.

Brown convinced himself that he had created a permanent boom - madness.

Exactly.

Brown saying he had abolished boom and bust (or words to that effect) was delusional.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells knows things are cyclical in life.

Where Brown really screwed up was continuing to spend and run decifits in the world wide economic boom.

Someone said to me that Keynesian theory makes clear we should be spending in a recession and not cutting back, that may be the theory but perhaps you have to prepare for those times and run a surplus in the good years.

Its basic common sense. If you or I kept getting pay rise after pay rise and big bonuses but continued to spend more than our increasing income, it wouldn't be a surprise if we were in a mess when we lost our job.

Brown believed his own nonsense and its come back to bite us.

[Jon MW]

So if you're born a poor Londoner, what are your choices?
How do you relocate?

It's a tricky one because on the one hand it makes perfect sense that if you can't afford to live somewhere if you're employed then it's ridiculous to think you should be entitled to live there if you're on benefits.

But the most obvious solution - which has been used to varying degrees over the past 40 odd years is that Londoners get sent to social housing outside London. This unfortunately means you get a bunch of housing estates in slightly worn out towns full of London wash outs (because the one's they get rid of from London are the one's they want the least).

Some form of this solution would be needed which encourages a more diverse mix of Londoners to move away would be needed - but it's far from obvious how you'd go about it.

Like I said above though - people who are in work and whose circumstances change don't tend to have the same kind of problems.

[doubleup]

btw here is public spending in 2010

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2010UKbn_14bc1n_80#ukgs302


and here it is in 2014

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2014UKbn_14bc1n#ukgs302

There isn't really very much evidence of Labour's profligacy and George's austerity.  He did though manage to scare everyone when he took office nearly causing the economy to tumble back into recession.

I think showing 2010 labour spend isn't really the reason why the country is busto.  Try publishing the previous 8 years then we might see where the issues with over spend were with the loony lefties pre 2007 banking crisis.

What? The 2008 crisis wasn't a public spending crisis man.

You need to distinguish between the credit crisis and the public spending.  If we ignore the regulation side, the credit crisis had little to do with Labour.   However, the insanity of running budget deficits during a crack boom between 2002 and 2007 when the tax receipts were rolling in meant that we were in a far worse position to counter the credit crisis with increased Government spending than if we had been more disciplined.

Brown convinced himself that he had created a permanent boom - madness.

Exactly.

Brown saying he had abolished boom and bust (or words to that effect) was delusional.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells knows things are cyclical in life.

Where Brown really screwed up was continuing to spend and run decifits in the world wide economic boom.

Someone said to me that Keynesian theory makes clear we should be spending in a recession and not cutting back, that may be the theory but perhaps you have to prepare for those times and run a surplus in the good years.

Its basic common sense. If you or I kept getting pay rise after pay rise and big bonuses but continued to spend more than our increasing income, it wouldn't be a surprise if we were in a mess when we lost our job.

Brown believed his own nonsense and its come back to bite us.

So what particularly did Brown spend money on that he shouldn't have?  All government spending is detailed in the links I posted.

Re deficit/surplus - why did the GW Bush Republican administration run a considerable deficit during the same "boom years"

Isn't it possible that taxes were too low not spending too high?

[doubleup]

So if you're born a poor Londoner, what are your choices?
How do you relocate?

It's a tricky one because on the one hand it makes perfect sense that if you can't afford to live somewhere if you're employed then it's ridiculous to think you should be entitled to live there if you're on benefits.

But the most obvious solution - which has been used to varying degrees over the past 40 odd years is that Londoners get sent to social housing outside London. This unfortunately means you get a bunch of housing estates in slightly worn out towns full of London wash outs (because the one's they get rid of from London are the one's they want the least).

Some form of this solution would be needed which encourages a more diverse mix of Londoners to move away would be needed - but it's far from obvious how you'd go about it.

Like I said above though - people who are in work and whose circumstances change don't tend to have the same kind of problems.

How about we increase council tax in London boroughs so that the London people pay for their own unemployed in their overpriced houses that suck in investment from the rest of the country?

[Jon MW]

btw here is public spending in 2010

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2010UKbn_14bc1n_80#ukgs302


and here it is in 2014

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2014UKbn_14bc1n#ukgs302

There isn't really very much evidence of Labour's profligacy and George's austerity.  He did though manage to scare everyone when he took office nearly causing the economy to tumble back into recession.

I think showing 2010 labour spend isn't really the reason why the country is busto.  Try publishing the previous 8 years then we might see where the issues with over spend were with the loony lefties pre 2007 banking crisis.

What? The 2008 crisis wasn't a public spending crisis man.

You need to distinguish between the credit crisis and the public spending.  If we ignore the regulation side, the credit crisis had little to do with Labour.   However, the insanity of running budget deficits during a crack boom between 2002 and 2007 when the tax receipts were rolling in meant that we were in a far worse position to counter the credit crisis with increased Government spending than if we had been more disciplined.

Brown convinced himself that he had created a permanent boom - madness.

Exactly.

Brown saying he had abolished boom and bust (or words to that effect) was delusional.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells knows things are cyclical in life.

Where Brown really screwed up was continuing to spend and run decifits in the world wide economic boom.

Someone said to me that Keynesian theory makes clear we should be spending in a recession and not cutting back, that may be the theory but perhaps you have to prepare for those times and run a surplus in the good years.

Its basic common sense. If you or I kept getting pay rise after pay rise and big bonuses but continued to spend more than our increasing income, it wouldn't be a surprise if we were in a mess when we lost our job.

Brown believed his own nonsense and its come back to bite us.

So what particularly did Brown spend money on that he shouldn't have?  All government spending is detailed in the links I posted.

Re deficit/surplus - why did the GW Bush Republican administration run a considerable deficit during the same "boom years"

Isn't it possible that taxes were too low not spending too high?

Health care spending between 2005 and 2010 went up by nearly 3 times the rate of inflation - obviously having the double effect of being money which could have been spent on debt reduction - but also is budget that is politically difficult to reduce once it's gone up. (for example)

[doubleup]

Health care spending between 2005 and 2010 went up by nearly 3 times the rate of inflation - obviously having the double effect of being money which could have been spent on debt reduction - but also is budget that is politically difficult to reduce once it's gone up. (for example)

I just had a quick look at 1990-97.  Healthcare spending certainly seems to have increased by more than 3 times inflation in that period.  So you are suggesting that one of Brown's mistakes was spending the same as the previous Tory administration in this apparent boom period for taxes?

[DungBeetle]

So if you're born a poor Londoner, what are your choices?
How do you relocate?

It's a tricky one because on the one hand it makes perfect sense that if you can't afford to live somewhere if you're employed then it's ridiculous to think you should be entitled to live there if you're on benefits.

But the most obvious solution - which has been used to varying degrees over the past 40 odd years is that Londoners get sent to social housing outside London. This unfortunately means you get a bunch of housing estates in slightly worn out towns full of London wash outs (because the one's they get rid of from London are the one's they want the least).

Some form of this solution would be needed which encourages a more diverse mix of Londoners to move away would be needed - but it's far from obvious how you'd go about it.

Like I said above though - people who are in work and whose circumstances change don't tend to have the same kind of problems.

How about we increase council tax in London boroughs so that the London people pay for their own unemployed in their overpriced houses that suck in investment from the rest of the country?

A good suggestion I think to have higher council tax bands.  Certainly a more workable idea than a mansion tax.

[DungBeetle]

Health care spending between 2005 and 2010 went up by nearly 3 times the rate of inflation - obviously having the double effect of being money which could have been spent on debt reduction - but also is budget that is politically difficult to reduce once it's gone up. (for example)

I just had a quick look at 1990-97.  Healthcare spending certainly seems to have increased by more than 3 times inflation in that period.  So you are suggesting that one of Brown's mistakes was spending the same as the previous Tory administration in this apparent boom period for taxes?

Looking at two 13 year periods for fairness and rebasing everything to 2014 prices I found

1984 to 1997 healthcare spending went up by 52%
1997 to 2010 healhcare spending went up 103%

That website is really interesting by the way for messing around with government numbers - thanks for the link.

FWIW I don't think the Tories are any better with the economy with Labour - they are equally bad.  Reckless spending buys votes and that is the goal of all career politicians. 

I think it's just a legacy of the 70s that Labour are still percieved as poor with the economy (and a pro Tory press).

[TightEnd]

its a fact of political life

its politically extremely tough to up taxes substantially, indeed many electoral cycles see taxes cut in the run up to elections

similarly its politically extremely tough to reduce spending in key departments (including waste and bureaucracy) once its been increased

the net result of this over successive governments of whatever colour is what we have now, a very shallow recovery where people don't really see much of it in their day to day lives because structural deficits make it tough to effect real change and whichever government is elected is either side of a centre line where they are much of a muchness

[doubleup]

ok I've used % of GDP to look at nhs spending

1980 5%
1990 4.3%
2000 5%
2008 7%

So I concede that certainly in terms of GDP health spending was too high in the labour years.

It is presently 7.7% - so probably a proper debate required (which will never happen for the reasons TightEnd listed).

[DungBeetle]

Yep no chance of a discussion on NHS spending.  Labour want to use it as their primary strong point, and Tories are scared of being seen to be anti NHS.

It's possible that 5% was too low and 7/8% is the correct level, but there won't even be a debate.  It will just be politicians queuing up to increase funding without thought for how the funding should be deployed.

[vegaslover]

Historically Tory's have always underspent on NHS and Labour overspent.

Waiting lists go up under Tory and public sector pay goes down. Opposite with Labour

[DungBeetle]

Well that's the picture I had before looking at the figures.  But the figures say that annual spending went up 52% in real terms between 84 and 97.   Is that really underspending? 

[RickBFA]

I stumbled across this analysis of public spending, just had a quick look, its an interesting read

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf